IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedlwp/2001-006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade policy opinions at the state level

Author

Listed:
  • Cletus C. Coughlin

Abstract

Despite economists' nearly universal support for free trade policies, the general public has serious reservations about free trade. To understand this opposition, one must understand the preferences of individuals as they relate to the policy choices of policymakers. Ideally, one would like to know how these preferences differ across regions because legislators who represent their constituents in the U.S. Congress cast the actual votes on trade policies. The present study produces estimates by state of trade preferences linked directly to individual preferences. ; Scheve and Slaughter (2001a) found that the lower the skill level of a worker, the stronger the support for additional trade restrictions. I generate estimates by state for 1992 and 1996 using Scheve and Slaughter's estimates. The estimates are generated in two steps. First, an average level of educational attainment for each state is constructed. Second, this educational attainment variable is inserted into Scheve and Slaughter's estimate of the relationship between educational attainment and an individual's support for additional trade restrictions to produce an average probability of state support for additional trade restrictions. ; Generally speaking, states in the South have the highest levels of support for additional trade restrictions. Support for additional trade restrictions is lower in 1996 than in 1992. A verdict on the usefulness of these estimates has yet to be delivered; however, in the context of voting on NAFTA by U.S. Senators the estimates for 1992 yield plausible results.

Suggested Citation

  • Cletus C. Coughlin, 2001. "Trade policy opinions at the state level," Working Papers 2001-006, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedlwp:2001-006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2001-006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2001/2001-006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nipoli Kamdar & Jorge Gonzalez, 1998. "An empirical analysis of the U.S. Senate vote on NAFTA and GATT," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 4(2), pages 105-114, May.
    2. Thorbecke, Willem, 1997. "Explaining House Voting on the North American Free Trade Agreement," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(3-4), pages 231-242, September.
    3. John A. C. Conybeare & Mark Zinkula, 1996. "Who Voted Against the NAFTA? Trade Unions Versus Free Trade," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Baldwin, Robert E. & Christopher S. Magee, 2000. "Congressional Trade Votes: From NAFTA Approval to Fast Track Defeat," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number pa59, April.
    5. Bohara, Alok K & Kaempfer, William H, 1991. "A Test of Tariff Endogeneity in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 952-960, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baban Hasnat & Charles Callahan, III, 2004. "The Determinants of US Congressional Voting on the Trade and Development Act of 2000," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 3(1), pages 35-44, April.
    2. Metiu, Norbert, 2021. "Anticipation effects of protectionist U.S. trade policies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1139.
    4. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    5. Lake, James & Linask, Maia K., 2016. "Could tariffs be pro-cyclical?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-146.
    6. Carl Davidson & Steven J. Matusz, 2005. "Trade and Turnover: Theory and Evidence," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(5), pages 861-880, November.
    7. J. Lawrence Broz, 2005. "Congressional Politics of International Financial Rescues," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 479-496, July.
    8. Bagwell Kyle & Staiger Robert W., 2003. "Protection and the Business Cycle," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-45, September.
    9. Gary Winslett, 2016. "Public Opinion Distribution and Party Competition in US Trade Policy," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 1128-1145, August.
    10. Rod Falvey & Udo Kreickemeier, 2017. "Tariff Reforms with Rigid Wages," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: International Trade and Labor Markets Welfare, Inequality and Unemployment, chapter 4, pages 95-116, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1130.
    12. Alexandra Ferreira-Lopes & Ccndida Sousa & Helena Carvalho & Nuno Crespo, 2017. "Trade Protectionism and Intra-industry Trade: A USA - EU Comparison," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 88-102, December.
    13. Estefania-Flores, Julia & Furceri, Davide & Hannan, Swarnali A. & Ostry, Jonathan D. & Rose, Andrew K., 2023. "Are trade restrictions counter-cyclical? Evidence from a new aggregate measure," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 745-767.
    14. Bakke, Tor-Erik & Feng, Felix Zhiyu & Mahmudi, Hamed & Zhu, Caroline H., 2022. "Foreign competition and CEO risk-incentive compensation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    15. Witold J. Henisz & Edward D. Mansfield, 2015. "Votes and Vetoes: The Political Determinants of Commercial Openness," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Edward D Mansfield (ed.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, chapter 8, pages 145-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Georgios Georgiadis & Johannes Gräb, 2016. "Growth, Real Exchange Rates and Trade Protectionism since the Financial Crisis," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1050-1080, November.
    17. Bruno De Borger & Amihai Glazer, 2015. "Inducing political action by workers," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(4), pages 1117-1144, April.
    18. Jin Suk Park & Eunju Hwang, 2023. "Sectoral FTA gains, conflicts, and the role of interindustry factor mobility: Evidence from Korea's free trade agreement," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 97-123, February.
    19. Arnaud Costinot, 2009. "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: A "New" Perspective on Protectionism," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(5), pages 1011-1041, September.
    20. Valeria Groppo & Roberta Piermartini, 2014. "Trade Policy Uncertainty and the WTO," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1437, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedlwp:2001-006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Oates (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbslus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.